Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There are some minor translation differences ... that's why it's a good idea to compare translations and also use Hebrew and Greek lexicons.Well, I think you don’t address the element of human error that I believe has crept in when you call the Bible infallible. I believe God is perfect, but that with the Bible, minor mistakes have crept in. This relates to writing what actually happened years after the events took place, the changes caused by translations of the Bible, and the omitting of parts of the Bible in making new versions. I believe all these things have happened. Thank you for your comments, though. View attachment 340342
Sure, the big picture is the most important thing, yet I am also confronted with Christians who take every word in the Bible literally, and that makes communication and sharing of inspiration difficult. But yes, it is about the big picture, and also about Amazing Grace, yes.Regardless of who did what, is not the big picture more important, that being the whole book is about man's failure in not putting the will of God ahead of our own thus focusing on self rather than others? All while showing, in spite of ourselves, He will rectify things in His favour rather than what we want.
One thing I struggled with about Christianity is the statement that the Bible is “the infallible Word of God.” To me, the Holy Trinity is pure and perfect, yet any message passed on through human beings is bound to be flawed.
Any work done through people is bound to be contaminated by human errors. I only have to look at my own personal history to clearly see that everyone of us makes errors. So the idea that I should take the Bible word for word as the infallible Word of God doesn’t make sense to me.
How do you see this? And more in general, how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally, and who see any idea that there may be little flaws in there as blasphemous? Any feedback appreciated. And the message of Christianity is still the best message out there. God bless!
Thanks, Arbiter01, that was exactly the term I was looking for. Making the Bible your idol. That is totally different than using it as an amazingly inspiring text, which should be read with some discernment. Hallelujah! Merry Christmas!It was written by The Holy Spirit through man. It could have some differences in accounts like in the gospels, but I don't seen any outright errors.
Trying to talk to people who have made their bible their idol is a sort of worthless endeavor. There are plenty of other people to talk to.
Whether or not they are inerrant or that sections have been added does not change the fact that God's truth within scriptures throughout is not inerrant. The message remains the same from start to finish. Human theology can be discounted without harm to God's truth. His truth addresses any changes that have been made even if the one's responsible thought they were adding validity. That truth is His will must come before our own.What is debatable is the idea that the original texts, when they were written, were inerrant.
Considering in a lot of ways we can only guess as to what was in the original texts, it seems like a moot point to say they were inerrant. Whether they were or not, our modern texts are not inerrant. So subscribing to a notion that the originals were inerrant is of little practical value.The fact that errors have crept in through the copying process over time is indisputable. What is debatable is the idea that the original texts, when they were written, were inerrant. I tend to think that God is able to give an inerrant message to mankind, even through fallible vessels, because God is greater than man's weakness. Why should it be difficult to believe that God could inspire a human being in such a way as to make him write a given text without error? Just because there are things written that we do not fully understand, or disagree with in our flesh natures, does not mean that the text is wrong. I have wrestled with this for a long time now, but I just can't bring myself to think that God would give us a Bible that He knew was full of errors from the beginning. The question is not about man's incapability, but about God's faithfulness and capability.
I would say not inerrant, but faithful. What we have today is a reliable witness of what was originally written, particularly in the New Testament. Those passages which are in dispute by most scholars are not going to change a major doctrine of Christianity one way or another.Whether or not they are inerrant or that sections have been added does not change the fact that God's truth within scriptures throughout is not inerrant. The message remains the same from start to finish. Human theology can be discounted without harm to God's truth. His truth addresses any changes that have been made even if the one's responsible thought they were adding validity. That truth is His will must come before our own.
It does have value because, particularly in the New Testament, we have very good early manuscript evidence, along with many quotes from the early church fathers, which strongly suggest that the New Testament we have today is extremely close to the original texts.Considering in a lot of ways we can only guess as to what was in the original texts, it seems like a moot point to say they were inerrant. Whether they were or not, our modern texts are not inerrant. So subscribing to a notion that the originals were inerrant is of little practical value.
I can understand that, and without doubt God had a hand in preserving the text we have today, and whatever errors there are in the text were allowed by Him for a purpose.Personally, I view inerrancy in an entirely different way. Rather than seeing it as a lack of human errors, I see it as each error that exists within the text serving a purpose in God's overall plan. So there is no stray mark that wasn't fully intended by God, though from our perspective they certainly seem like errors.
Considering He used Gentiles to forward scriptures until this day. Scriptures that still speak of putting His will ahead of the will of man yet the Gentiles carrying the scriptures forward abandoned the Kingdom to rejoin the world of man, accepting an offer from the Tempter that Jesus refused. Truth hidden in contradiction.and without doubt God had a hand in preserving the text we have today, and whatever errors there are in the text were allowed by Him for a purpose.
I'm not sure being close is enough when we're discussing inerrancy, because we don't know if any particular thing we're looking at was actually present in the originals. So we can be confident that what we have is generally trustworthy, but whether or not the originals were inerrant doesn't change how we interpret the texts today. We can use text criticism to approximate an original reading, but we'll never have what the originals actually said and our text criticism processes involve a fair amount of speculation.It does have value because, particularly in the New Testament, we have very good early manuscript evidence, along with many quotes from the early church fathers, which strongly suggest that the New Testament we have today is extremely close to the original texts.
Yes, and I would say the same is possible for the originals. They may have all of the normal historiographical issues of any text from the time they were produced without such things making a difference in their authority on the areas that they have relevance.I can understand that, and without doubt God had a hand in preserving the text we have today, and whatever errors there are in the text were allowed by Him for a purpose.
Appreciate the thoughts, it's certainly not my area of expertise either though considering this is a bit of a basic area of faith I'm not sure that we must rely on experts to have an opinion.Well, I have had my say in this. Since this topic is not one I am an expert on, I'm going to bow out.
Merry Christmas, Fervent.
Archaeologists have discovered ancient Biblical texts, such as were found in the Dead Sea scrolls, that are word for word identical with the texts we have today. Of course some nuances that are in the Greek and Hebrew don't always come through in our English versions, but they are fairly minor and do not in any way detract from what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible. The exceptions are versions like the Passion Bible and the Message which are paraphrases by authors who have no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and therefore have serious differences between the original language texts and what they have written.One thing I struggled with about Christianity is the statement that the Bible is “the infallible Word of God.” To me, the Holy Trinity is pure and perfect, yet any message passed on through human beings is bound to be flawed.
Any work done through people is bound to be contaminated by human errors. I only have to look at my own personal history to clearly see that everyone of us makes errors. So the idea that I should take the Bible word for word as the infallible Word of God doesn’t make sense to me.
How do you see this? And more in general, how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally, and who see any idea that there may be little flaws in there as blasphemous? Any feedback appreciated. And the message of Christianity is still the best message out there. God bless!
Word for word identical? That sounds rather fantastic. No offense, but do you have resources on that?Archaeologists have discovered ancient Biblical texts, such as were found in the Dead Sea scrolls, that are word for word identical with the texts we have today. Of course some nuances that are in the Greek and Hebrew don't always come through in our English versions, but they are fairly minor and do not in any way detract from what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible. The exceptions are versions like the Passion Bible and the Message which are paraphrases by authors who have no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and therefore have serious differences between the original language texts and what they have written.
You have Google. Look it up for yourself the same way I did. If the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the Bible, then the wording comes from the Holy Spirit (in the original) so the way the Bible is worded is important and significant. Most times the Bible is to be interpreted exactly how it says, not what we think it might say to us. We also have to determine which parts of the Bible are written for us, and which are written directly to us. What this means is that there is a difference between the descriptive parts and the prescriptive parts. For example, the Gospels and Acts are mainly descriptive and not meant to be the basis for Christian doctrine, but the letters of the Apostles are prescriptive and are there for reproof, exhortation, doctrine, and guidance.Word for word identical? That sounds rather fantastic. No offense, but do you have resources on that?
I do believe the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Bible. I just cannot see, considering the human nature that the Holy Spirit has to deal with, how this could be flawless. The core message of the Bible, that God is Love, and wants to commune with us, is, of course, flawless. Have a blessed day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?